When will this shit end?

[Ozanne]

3 minutes ago, xxialac said:

I have no idea what makes people think we can realistically go from 2.6m people to 14m people in the space of exactly one month.

They'll do what they always do: 

• "Mid February" will turn into the last few days of February
• Someone else will be blamed (we weren't given enough supplies by the pharma)
• They'll spin vaccines offered as vaccines delivered - so easy to 'offer' a vaccine. Probably they'll also count the second doses too. 

They’ll achieve the target by saying they offered vaccinations to 14m people or have booked in 14m vaccination appointments I reckon. 

[steviewevie]

3 minutes ago, xxialac said:

I have no idea what makes people think we can realistically go from 2.6m people to 14m people in the space of exactly one month.

They'll do what they always do: 

• "Mid February" will turn into the last few days of February
• Someone else will be blamed (we weren't given enough supplies by the pharma)
• they'll spin vaccines offered as vaccines delivered - so easy to 'offer' a vaccine. Probably they'll also count the second doses too. 

If they manage 2mill a week they may get pretty close...but I think they're already running into supply issues in parts of the country, so not sure they will. Does it matter though if miss it by a week or two, as long as we get most of the vulnerable vaccinated asap.

[xxialac]

1 minute ago, Fuzzy Afro said:

You know fine well that the reason vaccines “offered” is the metric used is because a fairly significant minority of people choose not to have the vaccine. 

Fine. Include both numbers in the reporting. But the far, far more important number is # people vaccinated and it is obtuse to target anything else.

[Crazyfool01]

Just now, Ozanne said:

They’ll achieve the target by saying they offered vaccinations to 14m people or have booked in 14m vaccination appointments I reckon. 

in reality that might be quite close then .... maybe 1 week behind ?

[RobertProsineckisLighter]

1 minute ago, Ozanne said:

They’ll achieve the target by saying they offered vaccinations to 14m people or have booked in 14m vaccination appointments I reckon. 

Your so far your particular rabbit hole if you stop typing for a minute you can probably hear QAnon next door.

[incident]

36 minutes ago, fraybentos1 said:

With the Oxford one, they say it’s better to have a longer dosing gap I believe. 

Yes - @Toilet Duck covered this previously - basically the data in the Public Assessment Report indicates that in the trial, the people who had longer gaps between doses actually had a significantly higher protection rate.

 

[gooner1990]

2 minutes ago, parsonjack said:

I've got Doves end of March.....it's clearly not going to happen but not heard anything formally yet.

I've got tickets for Dutty Moonshine Band in Oxford for the start of May....like you not heard anything about postponement/cancellation but its clearly not going to happen either!

[zahidf]

3 minutes ago, Fuzzy Afro said:

You know fine well that the reason vaccines “offered” is the metric used is because a fairly significant minority of people choose not to have the vaccine. 

Thats not even the metric they are using: mancock said the numbers they'll use for figures will be appointments booked in. If someone says no to a vaccine, they won't be counted.

[zahidf]

Just now, incident said:

Yes - @Toilet Duck covered this previously - basically the data in the Public Assessment Report indicates that in the trial, the people who had longer gaps between doses actually had a significantly higher protection rate.

 

Stop using facts to defend the Tories. Dont you know they are only doing it to make more money?

[aj6658]

Out of curiosity I went to the very beginning of this threat and wow we were so wrong. Quite interesting to see

[xxialac]

1 minute ago, zahidf said:

Thats not even the metric they are using: mancock said the numbers they'll use for figures will be appointments booked in. If someone says no to a vaccine, they won't be counted.

Mancock proved to be slippery eel with test and trace. This is no different.

With 'appointments booked' there is no transparency and far too easy to fudge the figures.

[zahidf]

3 minutes ago, steviewevie said:

If they manage 2mill a week they may get pretty close...but I think they're already running into supply issues in parts of the country, so not sure they will. Does it matter though if miss it by a week or two, as long as we get most of the vulnerable vaccinated asap.

Yeah.... I predicted around 12 million or so will be reached by mid feb. Thats very good imo, and having a larger target to work to is perfectly fine in project management terms (as I've posted previously before)

[RobertProsineckisLighter]

1 minute ago, crazyfool1 said:

in reality that might be quite close then .... maybe 1 week behind ?

If they keep going up through the gears and the supply chain holds up (looking forward to seeing how that gets pinned on Boris probably should have a HGV licence pulling the wagons on back of.his bike could be tough) I think they will be in the ball park. If there a bit late so what, being within a couple of million is a damn good effort from all involved.

[gooner1990]

Just now, aj6658 said:

Out of curiosity I went to the very beginning of this threat and wow we were so wrong. Quite interesting to see

I did that a couple of weeks ago...was interesting to read!

[zahidf]

Just now, xxialac said:

Mancock proved to be slippery eel with test and trace. This is no different.

With 'appointments booked' there is no transparency and far too easy to fudge the figures.

But that stats they are using and putting out clearly says how many people are vaccinated. Not sure how you think they will fudge it. 

[steviewevie]

2 minutes ago, aj6658 said:

Out of curiosity I went to the very beginning of this threat and wow we were so wrong. Quite interesting to see

Just looked at first page, Barney MacGrew and The Nal got it right.

[st dan]

1 minute ago, zahidf said:

Yeah.... I predicted around 12 million or so will be reached by mid feb. Thats very good imo, and having a larger target to work to is perfectly fine in project management terms (as I've posted previously before)

Absolutely this - they could have made an easily achievable target of say 8-10m (or less) in the same timeframe and could have delivered this comfortably and then it would be widely accepted as a success. There is nothing wrong with them aiming at the top end of their projections, and if they only hit 12m for example, this shouldn’t be regarded as a ‘failure’. 

[Crazyfool01]

1 minute ago, RobertProsineckisLighter said:

If they keep going up through the gears and the supply chain holds up (looking forward to seeing how that gets pinned on Boris probably should have a HGV licence pulling the wagons on back of.his bike could be tough) I think they will be in the ball park. If there a bit late so what, being within a couple of million is a damn good effort from all involved.

I agree looks like something we have started well at ... long may it continue ..... although I dont know about the mass vaccination centres as yet ... think it would be better to have the local pharmacys having the doses ..... later on when more mobile sections of the population get the jabs  these may well work better .... Boris will be hiding in his fridge anyway 

[RobertProsineckisLighter]

4 minutes ago, crazyfool1 said:

I agree looks like something we have started well at ... long may it continue ..... although I dont know about the mass vaccination centres as yet ... think it would be better to have the local pharmacys having the doses ..... later on when more mobile sections of the population get the jabs  these may well work better .... Boris will be hiding in his fridge anyway 

Some of it might be how joined up (system wise) the pharmacies are with the NHS as recording when, what vaccine and batch number you have is really important apparently. 

I guess also if you need to consider the locks pharmacy is still going to be serving its usual customers so physical capacity could be an issue - my nearest for example at the best of times has one single seat. 

At least this way they have the potential to increase capacity and change approach if it's not working - you could use the large centres as hubs and distribute out to the smaller sites from there.

Edited January 14, 2021 by RobertProsineckisLighter

[stuartbert two hats]

28 minutes ago, xxialac said:

YES

WHY?

[Ozanne]

14 minutes ago, RobertProsineckisLighter said:

Your so far your particular rabbit hole if you stop typing for a minute you can probably hear QAnon next door.

I’m not really sure where that has come from. 
 

However the government originally said they would vaccinate 14m by mid-Feb and then changed to offering 14m vaccinations by mid-Feb. I’m just going by what they are saying. 

[xxialac]

7 minutes ago, st dan said:

Absolutely this - they could have made an easily achievable target of say 8-10m (or less) in the same timeframe and could have delivered this comfortably and then it would be widely accepted as a success. There is nothing wrong with them aiming at the top end of their projections, and if they only hit 12m for example, this shouldn’t be regarded as a ‘failure’. 

That's not my point at all.

I'm saying they won't do 12m and it will be yet another example of overpromise, underdeliver.

How did setting ambitious targets go with track and trace etc?

[stuartbert two hats]

12 minutes ago, steviewevie said:

Just looked at first page, Barney MacGrew and The Nal got it right.

I'm going to stick with what I said on the second page:

Although the "June" referred to in the post is 2021 now!

[stuartbert two hats]

5 minutes ago, xxialac said:

That's not my point at all.

I'm saying they won't do 12m and it will be yet another example of overpromise, underdeliver.

How did setting ambitious targets go with track and trace etc?

Given the current rates of vaccination and considering we're still ramping up, it looks like we're going to get damn close to 12m by mid Feb.

[st dan]

3 minutes ago, xxialac said:

That's not my point at all.

I'm saying they won't do 12m and it will be yet another example of overpromise, underdeliver.

How did setting ambitious targets go with track and trace etc?

But that’s why I’m saying - they have obviously gone for a large number that they must have believed hit all the SMART targets. They are fully aware of the criticism that would come their way if they don’t hit this - but there is nothing wrong with ‘shooting for the moon’ on this in my opinion. 

Would you have preferred they had targeted 8m by mid February and therefore not had to really push for as many vaccines as possible? Plus they also haven’t failed to meet their initial target yet, so let’s assess this in a months time when the proof will be in the pudding. 

As I feel like I have to say anytime I give any ounce of faint praise to the government - this is not me defending them or letting them off from their previous failures.